Why is OJP using Byrne/JAG grant funds to enforce 8 U.S.C. § 1373? Authorizing legislation for the Byrne/JAG grant program requires that all
grant applicants certify compliance both with the provisions of that authorizing legislation and all other applicable federal laws. The Office of
Justice Programs has determined that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (Section 1373) is an applicable federal law under the Byrne/JAG authorizing legislation.
Therefore, all Byrne/JAG grant applicants must certify compliance with all applicable federal laws, including Section 1373, as part of the Byrne/JAG
grant application process.

As OJP has previously stated, o ur goal is to ensure that JAG and SCAAP recipients are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations,
including Section 1373 .

After Culberson met with officials within the Justice Department and made clear that their financial situation could become strained if they
refused to cooperate, the department released guidance notifying all U.S. jurisdictions that they must comply with all federal law — including 8
U.S.C. 1373 — in order to receive federal grants. “I’ve effectively created an off-switch that Attorney General Sessions and President Trump can
throw at noon on January 20 to cut off all federal law-enforcement grants to these cities,” Culberson tells National Review.

According to Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, three federal grants in particular would be in
question for sanctuary cities: the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which provides reimbursements for the expense of incarcerating
illegal aliens; Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which funds community policing efforts; and Byrne-JAG grants, which fund miscellaneous
spending for state and local law-enforcement agencies.

Though the federal government cannot legally compel states to comply with federal law, it is permitted to use financial rewards or incentives
to encourage states to comply. This precedent was established in the 1992 Supreme Court case New York v. United States and has been upheld and
strengthened since, and thus the Justice Department’s guidance in this instance clearly falls under constitutional precedent, Culberson
reasoned.

Culberson says that other appropriations subcommittee chairmen have been supportive of his work on this issue and are interested in encouraging
federal departments under their authority to issue the same guidance to all jurisdictions.

1) the rise of populist movements around the world has moved us closer to state vs state war. To be clear I'm not saying the populist movements are
wrong; just that this is a byproduct to be mindfull of.

2) As this OP demonstrates; there appears to be an increase in the brake down in the rule of law with in countries. Smaller and smaller groups of
people are deciding to subvert the law. Again don't get me wrong; on this one issue these people might be morally right; it is the continued trend
that is dangerous.

These two macro and micro issue show we are moving closer toward larger conflict between people. This has concerned me much more then the Trump
controversy of the week. What's worse is that people I would consider decent and thoughtful are engaging in the deavisness. With no level headed
people left who will save us from ourselves?

USA is at war!
all your enemys are getting in an making a foot hold.
they are take over government positions to get more in.
in they had on military uniforms and weapons.
it would be a attack and war, then you Would fight back.

but as they take over in a soft way.
You Let them win the war.
when USSR China and others
start fighting IN US for what Was your land.
you will know you Dont have a USA any more.

“No department, committee, agency, commission, officer or employee of the Borough of Prospect Park shall use any Borough funds or
resources to assist in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Law.”

It was also the argument of the Mayor of Miama/Dade County, until he caved under Trump's threat.

Before Thursday, Miami-Dade was considered one of these de facto “sanctuary” communities. The county’s policy was to only
hold detainees if federal immigration officials agreed to reimburse the county for the detention costs — a condition set in a 2013 resolution.
This practice put the county on a list of sanctuary cities in a Department of Justice report in May, prompting county officials to push back against
the label. www.washingtonpost.com...
erm=.23826ed5148a

It's also a force behind California's Trust Act

The TRUST Act sets a minimum standard across the state to limit cruel and costly immigration “hold” requests in local jails. These optional
holds are often caused by the deeply controversial "Secure" Communities or S-Comm program. They trap undocumented and immigrant Californians – and
even citizens – for extra time, at local expense, because ICE thinks it can deport them.

By entangling our local police and sheriffs in the machinery of deportation, the federal government has undermined community safety, put survivors and
witnesses to crimes at risk, and wasted important local resources. www.catrustact.org...

One wonders how it can be that this man is so monstrous as to fail to heed the will of Mr Trump! I mean, surely the people in his locality must be
dreadful, just awful people to elect a man who would fail to fall in line. For shame....

*sarcasm off*

Of course he is opposing it. I would expect people to start acting against these actions, developing workarounds, or just straight blocking the moves
when Trump makes them. Unfortunately, this was always going to be the shape of things, once it became apparent that the universe was not kidding, when
it permitted Trump to place his rump upon the commode that is the Presidency.

I'm getting sick of your anti-trump posts. Worry about your own country, twit. How about we redirect all these refugees and illegals to Britain?

And yes, a government official isn't supposed to fall out of line when the commander in chief makes orders. That mayor should be removed.

So..............do you have Sanctuary cities, villages, towns, or "counties" for illegal immigrants in the UK?

Or are you simply intimating that while its not o.k. for the UK, the US should be a sanctuary for illegal immigrants?

If you have tight immigration laws in the UK that are vigorously enforced and a situation where illegal immigrants are jailed and deported once
apprehended in the UK, why shouldn't the US have the same protections?

yes they do, and when trump`s DOJ gets around to enforcing the laws there will be a lot of butt hurt sanctuary city mayors and city councils facing
charges of conspiracy to violate federal immigration laws, and maybe aiding and abetting illegals.

I am sure they can make up for it by removing the state requirements to comply with other federal laws that are not under federal power per the
Constitution.

Well, that's what has to happen, some kind cohesive plan, and not the Federal Government just willy nilly forcing local communities to figure out how
to bear federal fiscal responsibilities with local tax dollars.

Exactly how many local tax dollars does it cost for a police office to make a phone call and say "Yeah we have a criminal with no citizenship
documentation. When will you pick him/her up?"

Exactly how many local tax dollars does it cost for a police office to make a phone call and say "Yeah we have a criminal with no citizenship
documentation. When will you pick him/her up?"

That's not the problem. The problem is that ICE isn't showing up to collect these people, and local jails are being forced to detain them
indefinitely, until ICE and Homeland Security figure it out what to do with them, AFTER they've served their time for whatever crime they were
convicted of.

Also, some of these people being detained are non-criminals that were discovered through their children's school for reporting or witnesses a crime or
minor traffic violations.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.